Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Indeed! After all, we have plans. BIG plans.

Holy shit! That was on HBO27GMT last night. I got sucked in right as Superman swept Lois Lane off the balcony. I'd forgotten how much I loved Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.

I was profoundly, profoundly disappointed that all New York subway stations didn't look like Lex's lair when I finally made it to TCOTU for the first time when I was ten or so.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I'm still a little confused about the reaction. Isn't one of Bush's strong points the fact that he has conviction and he will do what he thinks is right for the country no matter how popular it may be?

Yes. But, remember, Bush I nominated Souter. He made a judgment call on him, and it didn't turn out well. It made people skittish. ("Of or pertaining to skit.") With Miers, Bush II is making a similar judgment call, and we all have even less knowledge of her than we had of Souter. Granted, no one really could have ferreted out back then that Souter would turn into . . . well . . . Souter. But, people would like the chance to try. Miers' known characteristics are so limited that there's no past performance or writings to even guess as to how she will perform - and there are several very highly qualified, vetted, known quantities out there whose histories DO make it possible for people to feel confidant in their nomination. Miers is just too much of a chancy pick.

Bush is saying "trust me" in a situation where he didn't have to fall back on that. He could have picked one of the people for whom there is widespread confidence. I still admire those qualities in Bush of which you spoke - the conviction in the face of bad PR, etc. - but, given the excellent candidates for this important position, this is all so disappointing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Come on Spank, she's not invincible, what's her kryptonite?

That John Holmes cock she keeps wrapped around her right leg?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have seen some focus groups on her. I think you are wrong. The far right hates her but the middle of the road sort of likes her and the far left absolutely love her.

I'm middle of the road and I hate her. She's the left's version of Bush. She's a fucking bullshitting ideologue who believes Big Govt is the answer to everything. Worse, she's a know it all. She'll have Barbara Streisand consulting on health care issues and blue ribbon panels of policy masturbators of every stripe creating piles of programs in every imaginable direction.

Just like Bush, if you elect her, she'll pull a 180 and screw you so hard you'll never know what hit you.

She. Is. Not. Her. Husband. And people know it. We've learned to spot horseshit artists - thats at least one great legacy of Bush. Nobody will ever trust a thing a candidate says, which is good. A cynical voting public is what we need.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We've learned to spot horseshit artists - thats at least one great legacy of Bush.

Um, to be fair, your guy, who was one of the most liberal members of the guv, campaigned as a centrist.

Now Hil's gonna try the same thing.

Is being a liberal that embarrassing even to liberals?

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yes. But, remember, Bush I nominated Souter. He made a judgment call on him, and it didn't turn out well. It made people skittish. ("Of or pertaining to skit.") With Miers, Bush II is making a similar judgment call, and we all have even less knowledge of her than we had of Souter. Granted, no one really could have ferreted out back then that Souter would turn into . . . well . . . Souter. But, people would like the chance to try. Miers' known characteristics are so limited that there's no past performance or writings to even guess as to how she will perform - and there are several very highly qualified, vetted, known quantities out there whose histories DO make it possible for people to feel confidant in their nomination. Miers is just too much of a chancy pick.

Bush is saying "trust me" in a situation where he didn't have to fall back on that. He could have picked one of the people for whom there is widespread confidence. I still admire those qualities in Bush of which you spoke - the conviction in the face of bad PR, etc. - but, given the excellent candidates for this important position, this is all so disappointing.

I'm sure Bush II does not think of his "trust me" as a fall back position. He no doubt thinks his "trust me" is as good, if not better, than 15 years worth of scrutinized legal opinions. To Bush II, the word of a trustworthy person carries more weight than accordian file full of data. This is why we like him. It is a reson why the voters chose him. He has strength of conviction.

And I would like to distinguish Souter from Miers. Bush II knows Miers a whole lot better than BushI knew Souter. Indeed, Souter was Sununununu's pick, while Miers is clearly Bush II's pick. BushI erred in trusting Sununu, who had misinterpretted Souter. Here, Bush II has first hand knowledge of Miers.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I'm sure Bush II does not think of his "trust me" as a fall back position. He no doubt thinks his "trust me" is as good, if not better, than 15 years worth of scrutinized legal opinions. To Bush II, the word of a trustworthy person carries more weight than accordian file full of data. This is why we like him. It is a reson why the voters chose him. He has strength of conviction.

Understood, and I agree, to a point. But this pick is too important. I'll generally acede to Bush's judgments - but he's had a few notable whiffs. Putin's heart is actually kind of black. Even when Bush whiffs, he gets a lot of credit, including from me, because I think he's going from good intentions. But, there was just no good reason for this move - there are lots of people out there who would be excellent for this.

And I would like to distinguish Souter from Miers. Bush II knows Miers a whole lot better than BushI knew Souter. Indeed, Souter was Sununununu's pick, while Miers is clearly Bush II's pick. BushI erred in trusting Sununu, who had misinterpretted Souter. Here, Bush II has first hand knowledge of Miers.

I know. Miers might well turn out to be the perfect choice. But, given that this is a lifetime appointment, given that it's been the Court that has most dramatically scaped the American scene for some years, and given that there's no real reason to think that Bush will get another slot to fill, "might" is just scaring the bejeebers out of some of us. A McConnoll (sp?) would have been perfect, too, without the "might."

Maybe we're just too insecure.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
given that it's been the Court that has most dramatically scaped the American scene for some years,

Que?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Que?

Think "landscape" as a verb. Scaping the land.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, to be fair, your guy, who was one of the most liberal members of the guv, campaigned as a centrist.

Now Hil's gonna try the same thing.

Is being a liberal that embarrassing even to liberals?

No. Being a liberal is fine. A liberal believes that people ought to be free to do what they want to do. My understanding of a true liberal is one who wants the govt OUT of his business and doesn't want to be told what to think or do.

What's embarrassing are these whiny, cocksucking know-it-alls who think the govt needs to control people and even the playing field for everyone. These pricks fancy themselves as "Happiness Engineers" for the rest of us (which is odd, considering they're often the most unhappy tools you'll ever meet).

I can't think of anything less "liberal" than demanding the govt interfere in people's lives and redistribute their money for "the better of us all." These "liberals" are identical to the Rabid Right. The only difference is the type of control they seek to inflict and whether the state or fed ought to get the lion's share of your tax dollars.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. Being a liberal is fine. A liberal believes that people ought to be free to do what they want to do. My understanding of a true liberal is one who wants the govt OUT of his business and doesn't want to be told what to think or do.

Um, no, that's "libertarian." Not even close to "liberal."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, no, that's "libertarian." Not even close to "liberal."

I disagree. The definition of a liberal is one who is in favor of less regulation. Its been twisted sideways by the assholes who think govt interference is a form of liberty, but the definitions of "liberal" are (from Google):

# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
# big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
# a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
# free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

I don't see anything there that says "favoring govt interference." In fact, the second to last description is what's usually used to define a libertarian.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I disagree. The definition of a liberal is one who is in favor of less regulation. Its been twisted sideways by the assholes who think govt interference is a form of liberty, . . .

Okay. As long as you understand that, when I say "Kerry is an ultra-liberal", you know that I am using the word in its present twisted form, that's fine.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
On the other hand, McCain has a group of moderate Democrats that would cross party lines to vote for McCain. I know I would over most Democrats likely to be able to win the nomination.

Really? Are you aware that McCain has one of the most conservative records in the Senate on abortion and gun control. I think he has a 100% rating from most right to life groups and from the NRA.

McCain is a great guy and I think the fact that he is a great guy has made its way through most media filters. However, I don't think many Dems are going to keep their support once they see how he is voted on stuff. But I could be wrong.

I don't like his stance on many issues, inclusing campaign finance, but I would vote for him. But I am not a Dem. Knowing what you know about his record you would still vote for him over most Dems?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm middle of the road and I hate her. She's the left's version of Bush. She's a fucking bullshitting ideologue who believes Big Govt is the answer to everything. Worse, she's a know it all. She'll have Barbara Streisand consulting on health care issues and blue ribbon panels of policy masturbators of every stripe creating piles of programs in every imaginable direction.

Just like Bush, if you elect her, she'll pull a 180 and screw you so hard you'll never know what hit you.

She. Is. Not. Her. Husband. And people know it. We've learned to spot horseshit artists - thats at least one great legacy of Bush. Nobody will ever trust a thing a candidate says, which is good. A cynical voting public is what we need.

That may be your view but that is not what the focused groups are showing. Her support in the middle is pretty good. I agree with Dick Morris. She is going to be tough to beat.